Title: Coal Country Director: Phyllis Geller Release year: 2009
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This film discusses the American coal industry from a variety of angles, and throws into relief not only all of the inherent issues with the system but why the system is in place and what it does for us. It also discusses where parts of the system are corrupt, and how everybody involved suffers when this happens. One area of focus is the mountain top removal activity taking place in West Virginia, the people involved and the laws in place to regulate it.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The main problem discussed is our dependence on coal. As we all well know, coal is a deplete-able resource which when burned releases absurd amounts of carbon, among other greenhouse gasses. The film begins by introducing the viewer to a coal mining community in West Virginia. The people living there are all dependent on the coal industry as their main support system, and fiercely defend their way of life. Without this industry, this community and thousands of others just like it, they believe, would perish. This shows part of what the coal industry is sustaining.
The film then goes on to discuss facts about the coal industry. Unbeknownst to most, coal powers about fifty percent of the United States. If this resource were to disappear, half of America would go black tomorrow. Out of this industry, about three percent of all mining operations involve mountain top removal. This process involves the removal of all vegetation in a particular area, leaving it a barren wasteland. By law, however, companies which use mountaintop removal must “reclaim” the area by planting new plant life over the area after the mining has been completed. There are many problems involved with this process, however. Although the companies are “trying their best” to replant wildlife and restart the ecosystems, the fact is that these operations rarely take hold for more than a few years, leaving only a few shrubs and brush growing in the place of a previously teaming forest. The reason for this is that the topsoil, which contains most of the nutrients, has been turned over and isn’t present anymore. For these reasons most reclamation sites are prime examples of how mountaintop removal is unsustainable.
Another aspect which the film goes into is the legal side of things. Although the Army Corp of Engineers is responsible for the “protection of the biological and chemical purity of the water in the United States”, they continually give out permits which are right near streams and rivers, and hardly enforce the laws which are in place regarding where mining corporations are allowed to dump the “fill material” which they have dug out of the ground. During one instance, there was a court case involving a mining company who was trying to dump the mountain top waste into a nearby stream. The moderator of the case, Judge Hayden, was taken to the site and determined that in fact the companies weren’t allowed to dump into these areas. This caused a governmental uproar. Because the governor of West Virginia was completely in the pockets of the huge coal industries, he put a hiring freeze on miners even though there was no need. This caused the people to rise up in protest, and eventually the case was overturned. This clearly demonstrates how these companies will use any means necessary to gather as much coal as possible and increase profits, regardless of its environmental impact.
Because the coal companies are so good at masking their true intentions, many of their employees are fiercely loyal to them. Major coal companies such as Massey Energy have traditionally cut wages and benefits for their employees, and have squashed every union that has ever tried to form. Despite this, they have managed to dupe their miners into thinking that the companies actually care about their well being, even though West Virginia’s coal mining communities, most of which are employed entirely by Massey, are some of the poorest in the country. Not only does this give the companies a huge boost in voters willing to vote for legislators who will continue to allow coal companies to destroy the earth in a variety of ways, but enables them to exploit the workers even further by slashing wages and not pushing for higher safety standards.
There are many ways in which the Coal Industry is shown destroying the environment. One is the refineries which take the coal and clean it. The chemicals used to clean it are poured into massive reservoirs called slurries. These slurries leak into water other forms of water supplies, giving nearby residents’ cancer and other diseases. These slurries have also been known to burst open, flooding massive areas with toxic chemicals. These plants are also destroying the air in nearby towns, covering some in layers of coal dust. One town in West Virginia has been so peppered with dust that residents can, on occasion, collect it from windows, cars, etc. This prompted them to force the company to cover their operations with huge white domes. Although this helps, the property in the town has been incredibly devalued. One retired coal miner told the tearful story about how he and his family together constructed a house which he wanted to raise his children in. He doesn’t feel safe doing this anymore, because of the awful environmental conditions in the area. One astonishing statistic stated that there are predictably 578 more deaths than average per year in regions near coal mines, most resulting from lung disease or cancer.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
Although I’m usually not persuaded by pathos arguments, I felt that this film balanced them out well with the facts. After sighting statistics about cancer rates and global warming, the film would then go on and connect the viewer directly with people affected, putting a face to the numbers. One scene which was particularly moving involved one of the employees of a coal mining company. His job was to help construct the reclamation sites. Unless this man was an exceptional liar, his speech about how his children are routinely pointed out as being the “kids of that coal industry man” by both the teachers and students alike was incredibly moving. “Were trying the best we can” he said through tearstained eyes. From their point of view, they provide a service which everybody desperately needs and are given absolutely no credit for all the hard work they do. This helped throw into relieve the matrix of problems involved, and did so without demonizing any individual involved aside from one monstrous CEO.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
This film was fairly convincing on all fronts. One area I was a little disappointed in was that of finding a solution. Because the problem is so dense, there seems to be no way out. This left a sour taste in ones mouth once the film was over, and made me want to throw up my hands; with CEO’s like the one running Massey and governors like the one in West Virginia fighting so adamantly for coal simply for the sake of a larger salary, what can one do against such mighty powers? Not turn on their lights?
What additional information does the film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc?
One issue this didn’t touch on was how much coal there was left. This is an important fact, as it determines the longevity, regardless of global warming, which this industry could continue to survive. It turns out that, in current coal mines, there is roughly 17 billion tons of coal left. This is enough to power the United States for plenty of years to come, and doesn’t even include the reserves we haven’t fully discovered yet. Although on one hand this leads to a sigh of relief, the fact that there is probably enough coal out there to completely destroy the entire world if burned is a daunting one.
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
Because of the fairness with which the film represents each side of the debate, this film can easily cater to both sides. Although it is interesting to those who aren’t really affected by the coal industry, it is probably much more relevant to those living near coal countries as it lays out the arguments of both sides in a way where facts are obvious and choices about the future are not.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
This is one area which the film lacked. Although it discussed government activism against the coal industry, every scene made it look like a futile effort. There were rarely times when the activists made any sort of progress, and the film played many more clips of them losing law suits, such as the one where Joe Lovett attempted to sue both a major corporation and the EPA for defying the clean water act. Although government intervention is the only way to stop these massive conglomerate earth destroying organizations, the fact of the matter is that such intervention seems barely attainable.
Although the film discussed ways in which the coal industry itself could combat the issue of greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, it determined that all of the methods that are currently being studied won’t work. Carbon capture, for instance, is considered a poor choice as we are too technologically behind to make it happen, and unless there is government intervention no company would conduct such practices. It also showed how some of those in the coal mining industry were eager for green jobs. The fact of the matter was, however, that they were all standing around waiting for jobs to come to them to no avail. The lack of ability to bring about such industries stems from the fact that as of right now, coal is the cheapest method of getting electricity. The consumers have spoken; cheap is what we want.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
Perhaps if the film had broadened its spectrum to include those who aren’t directly involved in the coal industry, it would have felt like it connected with more viewers. If, perhaps, they had interviewed people benefiting from this cheap source of power and who were unaware of it would have helped connect this other audience to the picture much more convincingly.
Director: Phyllis Geller
Release year: 2009
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This film discusses the American coal industry from a variety of angles, and throws into relief not only all of the inherent issues with the system but why the system is in place and what it does for us. It also discusses where parts of the system are corrupt, and how everybody involved suffers when this happens. One area of focus is the mountain top removal activity taking place in West Virginia, the people involved and the laws in place to regulate it.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The main problem discussed is our dependence on coal. As we all well know, coal is a deplete-able resource which when burned releases absurd amounts of carbon, among other greenhouse gasses. The film begins by introducing the viewer to a coal mining community in West Virginia. The people living there are all dependent on the coal industry as their main support system, and fiercely defend their way of life. Without this industry, this community and thousands of others just like it, they believe, would perish. This shows part of what the coal industry is sustaining.
The film then goes on to discuss facts about the coal industry. Unbeknownst to most, coal powers about fifty percent of the United States. If this resource were to disappear, half of America would go black tomorrow. Out of this industry, about three percent of all mining operations involve mountain top removal. This process involves the removal of all vegetation in a particular area, leaving it a barren wasteland. By law, however, companies which use mountaintop removal must “reclaim” the area by planting new plant life over the area after the mining has been completed. There are many problems involved with this process, however. Although the companies are “trying their best” to replant wildlife and restart the ecosystems, the fact is that these operations rarely take hold for more than a few years, leaving only a few shrubs and brush growing in the place of a previously teaming forest. The reason for this is that the topsoil, which contains most of the nutrients, has been turned over and isn’t present anymore. For these reasons most reclamation sites are prime examples of how mountaintop removal is unsustainable.
Another aspect which the film goes into is the legal side of things. Although the Army Corp of Engineers is responsible for the “protection of the biological and chemical purity of the water in the United States”, they continually give out permits which are right near streams and rivers, and hardly enforce the laws which are in place regarding where mining corporations are allowed to dump the “fill material” which they have dug out of the ground. During one instance, there was a court case involving a mining company who was trying to dump the mountain top waste into a nearby stream. The moderator of the case, Judge Hayden, was taken to the site and determined that in fact the companies weren’t allowed to dump into these areas. This caused a governmental uproar. Because the governor of West Virginia was completely in the pockets of the huge coal industries, he put a hiring freeze on miners even though there was no need. This caused the people to rise up in protest, and eventually the case was overturned. This clearly demonstrates how these companies will use any means necessary to gather as much coal as possible and increase profits, regardless of its environmental impact.
Because the coal companies are so good at masking their true intentions, many of their employees are fiercely loyal to them. Major coal companies such as Massey Energy have traditionally cut wages and benefits for their employees, and have squashed every union that has ever tried to form. Despite this, they have managed to dupe their miners into thinking that the companies actually care about their well being, even though West Virginia’s coal mining communities, most of which are employed entirely by Massey, are some of the poorest in the country. Not only does this give the companies a huge boost in voters willing to vote for legislators who will continue to allow coal companies to destroy the earth in a variety of ways, but enables them to exploit the workers even further by slashing wages and not pushing for higher safety standards.
There are many ways in which the Coal Industry is shown destroying the environment. One is the refineries which take the coal and clean it. The chemicals used to clean it are poured into massive reservoirs called slurries. These slurries leak into water other forms of water supplies, giving nearby residents’ cancer and other diseases. These slurries have also been known to burst open, flooding massive areas with toxic chemicals. These plants are also destroying the air in nearby towns, covering some in layers of coal dust. One town in West Virginia has been so peppered with dust that residents can, on occasion, collect it from windows, cars, etc. This prompted them to force the company to cover their operations with huge white domes. Although this helps, the property in the town has been incredibly devalued. One retired coal miner told the tearful story about how he and his family together constructed a house which he wanted to raise his children in. He doesn’t feel safe doing this anymore, because of the awful environmental conditions in the area. One astonishing statistic stated that there are predictably 578 more deaths than average per year in regions near coal mines, most resulting from lung disease or cancer.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
Although I’m usually not persuaded by pathos arguments, I felt that this film balanced them out well with the facts. After sighting statistics about cancer rates and global warming, the film would then go on and connect the viewer directly with people affected, putting a face to the numbers. One scene which was particularly moving involved one of the employees of a coal mining company. His job was to help construct the reclamation sites. Unless this man was an exceptional liar, his speech about how his children are routinely pointed out as being the “kids of that coal industry man” by both the teachers and students alike was incredibly moving. “Were trying the best we can” he said through tearstained eyes. From their point of view, they provide a service which everybody desperately needs and are given absolutely no credit for all the hard work they do. This helped throw into relieve the matrix of problems involved, and did so without demonizing any individual involved aside from one monstrous CEO.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
This film was fairly convincing on all fronts. One area I was a little disappointed in was that of finding a solution. Because the problem is so dense, there seems to be no way out. This left a sour taste in ones mouth once the film was over, and made me want to throw up my hands; with CEO’s like the one running Massey and governors like the one in West Virginia fighting so adamantly for coal simply for the sake of a larger salary, what can one do against such mighty powers? Not turn on their lights?
What additional information does the film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc?
One issue this didn’t touch on was how much coal there was left. This is an important fact, as it determines the longevity, regardless of global warming, which this industry could continue to survive. It turns out that, in current coal mines, there is roughly 17 billion tons of coal left. This is enough to power the United States for plenty of years to come, and doesn’t even include the reserves we haven’t fully discovered yet. Although on one hand this leads to a sigh of relief, the fact that there is probably enough coal out there to completely destroy the entire world if burned is a daunting one.
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
Because of the fairness with which the film represents each side of the debate, this film can easily cater to both sides. Although it is interesting to those who aren’t really affected by the coal industry, it is probably much more relevant to those living near coal countries as it lays out the arguments of both sides in a way where facts are obvious and choices about the future are not.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
This is one area which the film lacked. Although it discussed government activism against the coal industry, every scene made it look like a futile effort. There were rarely times when the activists made any sort of progress, and the film played many more clips of them losing law suits, such as the one where Joe Lovett attempted to sue both a major corporation and the EPA for defying the clean water act. Although government intervention is the only way to stop these massive conglomerate earth destroying organizations, the fact of the matter is that such intervention seems barely attainable.
Although the film discussed ways in which the coal industry itself could combat the issue of greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, it determined that all of the methods that are currently being studied won’t work. Carbon capture, for instance, is considered a poor choice as we are too technologically behind to make it happen, and unless there is government intervention no company would conduct such practices. It also showed how some of those in the coal mining industry were eager for green jobs. The fact of the matter was, however, that they were all standing around waiting for jobs to come to them to no avail. The lack of ability to bring about such industries stems from the fact that as of right now, coal is the cheapest method of getting electricity. The consumers have spoken; cheap is what we want.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
Perhaps if the film had broadened its spectrum to include those who aren’t directly involved in the coal industry, it would have felt like it connected with more viewers. If, perhaps, they had interviewed people benefiting from this cheap source of power and who were unaware of it would have helped connect this other audience to the picture much more convincingly.